1030: "Keyed"

[EpicanicusStrikes]

Sounding like an asshole is ok, but like an ass, never.

My ass happens to have a far deeper vocal register than myself and is much more proficient at staying within any given key. I wish that I sounded more like my ass. Chicks would dig me.

[Роберт]

I can never tell when it's deliberate...

Context should have made it blindingly obvious in this case. No offense, but any response other than "whoops haha I should have realized that was a joke" is a bad response, because you should have realized that was a joke.

[J Thomas]

I always thought Java was a functional language. I can't say I'm very picky about what term I use, though.

Um, no. That's one of the annoying things about it: no first-class functions.

You are aware that I was deliberately talking bullshit, aren't you?

Why would he know that?

If you actually knew what a functional language was, then it makes sense you would know whether Java was one. But you also said you weren't picky about terminology, which might come from just generally bullshitting about things you didn't know. Or you could be a pretentious person who didn't know anything about it but who quoted somebody else's feeble joke without even knowing that it was a joke.

It would be polite to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you have a long history of stating opinions here that most people disagree with. I have noticed that when I do that, people start to think it's rude. Then they start getting rude back at me, and they stop giving me the benefit of the doubt. It comes with the territory. I bet it generalizes to you and to other people who defiantly express minority opinions that offend people.

Maybe it will be a viable tactic for you to call him on it as if you were a valued member of the community who should be acknowledged for deliberately talking bullshit. Maybe if you demand to be treated with respect, people will treat you with respect. On the other hand, if the question comes up whether you were rude first, who gets to decide? The person who's accused of being rude, or somebody else?

What I do is just get used to it. In a public forum I have the right to say things that offend people, but I can't expect them to be gracious about it.

[jpk]

I can never tell when it's deliberate...

Oh, no, don't do that. It became painfully clear that you responded to me even though you had no idea what I was saying.

Are you saying it's always obvious that you're speaking bullshit? I guess maybe you're right. You should try changing it up sometimes, speak some non-bullshit for a while.

[The Moomin]

No offense, but. . .y'all sound like people caught out doing something monumentally stupid, then declaring the people catching you out are stupid for not realising you were actually doing it in a post-modern ironic fashion in the hope people believe you weren't actually being monumentally stupid.

Just sayin'.

[SirMustapha]

I wrote something to post here but, really, everything I wanted to say has already been said, and better.

[babble]

It would be polite to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you have a long history of stating opinions here that most people disagree with. I have noticed that when I do that, people start to think it's rude. Then they start getting rude back at me, and they stop giving me the benefit of the doubt. It comes with the territory. I bet it generalizes to you and to other people who defiantly express minority opinions that offend people.

Maybe it will be a viable tactic for you to call him on it as if you were a valued member of the community who should be acknowledged for deliberately talking bullshit. Maybe if you demand to be treated with respect, people will treat you with respect. On the other hand, if the question comes up whether you were rude first, who gets to decide? The person who's accused of being rude, or somebody else?

What I do is just get used to it. In a public forum I have the right to say things that offend people, but I can't expect them to be gracious about it.

Why is expressing a different opinion thought of as being rude? Surely expressing your opinion in a rude way is what is rude. Reacting to an opinion you don't share, if it's reasonably expressed, as if it's an attempt to offend, is, well, rude.

[SirMustapha]

Why is expressing a different opinion thought of as being rude? Surely expressing your opinion in a rude way is what is rude. Reacting to an opinion you don't share, if it's reasonably expressed, as if it's an attempt to offend, is, well, rude.

I concede that some posts I make are very provocative; but when people think that "disagreeable = rude", I'm at a loss. Worse: people who think like that almost always conclude that negative opinions are inherently bad and wrong and should never be posted. A reviewer on Fanfiction.net once made the excellent point of saying "Does the button read Review or Kiss the author's ass?"

[SoaG]

Are you saying it's always obvious that you're speaking bullshit? I guess maybe you're right.

As a default assumption for any internet discussion that's not a bad starting point.
http://xkcd.com/386

[J Thomas]

It would be polite to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you have a long history of stating opinions here that most people disagree with. I have noticed that when I do that, people start to think it's rude. Then they start getting rude back at me, and they stop giving me the benefit of the doubt. It comes with the territory. I bet it generalizes to you and to other people who defiantly express minority opinions that offend people.

Maybe it will be a viable tactic for you to call him on it as if you were a valued member of the community who should be acknowledged for deliberately talking bullshit. Maybe if you demand to be treated with respect, people will treat you with respect. On the other hand, if the question comes up whether you were rude first, who gets to decide? The person who's accused of being rude, or somebody else?

What I do is just get used to it. In a public forum I have the right to say things that offend people, but I can't expect them to be gracious about it.

Why is expressing a different opinion thought of as being rude? Surely expressing your opinion in a rude way is what is rude.

It appears to me that usually when an opinion is expressed that people find offensive, a lot of people think it's rude to express that opinion. It's possible that there are polite ways to express offensive opinions, that I did not notice.

Reacting to an opinion you don't share, if it's reasonably expressed, as if it's an attempt to offend, is, well, rude.

In any individual case, it's a judgement call whether the writer is expressing his position reasonably or trying to offend. When the position itself is offensive, people are likely to decide he's trying to offend. So for example, if a white supremacist were to post here explaining why whites have superior intelligence, how would he express that reasonably? Then if people insulted him and he accused them of being rude, wouldn't it basicly be a shouting match to decide who was rude? And the majority wins, or at least outshouts. (Or maybe the moderators would decide, and there probably isn't a white supremacist among them.) But on a forum full of white supremacists, somebody who said that whites are just as stupid as blacks might be the rude one.

MrMustafa consistently presents unpopular positions, and he generates a lot of antagonism. I think it's predictable that people wouldn't as much give him the benefit of the doubt when there's a doubt.

[SoaG]

In any individual case, it's a judgement call whether the writer is expressing his position reasonably or trying to offend. When the position itself is offensive, people are likely to decide he's trying to offend. So for example, if a white supremacist were to post here explaining why whites have superior intelligence, how would he express that reasonably? Then if people insulted him and he accused them of being rude, wouldn't it basicly be a shouting match to decide who was rude? And the majority wins, or at least outshouts.

Even a racist can be polite. A polite moron, but still polite. The same goes for any offensive views.

The question is, if you are offended do you respond in order to 1) relieve the stressful emotions aroused in yourself 2) alter their offensive views or 3) minimize the spread of such views to others.
The first is easy, may make you feel better, but is highly unlikely to change their position and may detrimentally affect the views of others.
The second is sometimes, but not always, possible and always extremely difficult and is actually more likely to occur as a side effect of aiming for the third than from a direct approach.
The third is more effort than the first and less than the second, but if done well has the potential to achieve all 3.
Put another way, is your goal to let off steam, be the champ of your highschool debate club, or change the world (even a little).

If the latter, then the next question then is how to do so effectively. 3 stages 1) TGIF 2) Reductio ad absurdum 3) WOPR
First, just the facts ma'am. Why they support your view and why they don't support and/or oppose theirs
Second, I mean the literal translation, not that you should argue towards this, rather that someone who holds an offensive view will make themselves absurd.
Third, maintaining an ongoing argument against an absurd view serves to give it some undeserved credibility. The only way to win is...

In short, give them enough rope to hang themselves, then just get out of the way

It is entirely possible for both views to lose an argument, as was demonstrated here recently in another thread that got locked. Twice.
The more shrilly an argument is made, the less credibility it has with an observer, even if the argument is valid, but more so if it's not.
Most people are sheep and make decisions based at least as much on emotion as reason. Strong negative emotion, sooner or later, will always evoke a strong negative emotional response from the herd.
Take the abortion debate down in the US for example*. Both sides argue, quite shrilly, from a moral perspective. 20 years ago the pro-lifers were much louder and more obnoxious than the pro-choicers, and over the years public opinion was shifting away from them. Now the pro-choicers are much louder and more obnoxious than the pro-lifers and over the last few years public opinion has been shifting the other way. The arguments haven't changed, only which of the 2 obnoxious groups is currently being the most shrill and thus hurting their own position. A debate stretching back to at least the '20s and still effectively a draw. Everyone has an opinion on that debate, but I posit that after all this time, most of those holding both views have nothing but contempt for those actively pushing either view, whether they agree or not.

This also explains in part why many advocacy organizations on a variety of issues that have been around for a long time become irrelevant. Aesop's fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

* Just an illustration of the effect of tone on the general public, no interest in getting into that debate, and thus have omitted my own views and phrased both sides in their own preferred 'pro' format.

[Copper Bezel]

Why would he know that?

If you don't mind going back to this, his deliberate abuse of terminology was in response to an abuse of terminology he found offensive, phrased in exactly the same way. The entire intended meaning of the message was that he didn't know what he was talking about, and I think it was fairly clear.

I will say that as a humanities person, I still find the bulk of the humanities less enlightening in a personal sense than, say, evolutionary biology, but I'd largely agree with the spirit of SirMustapha's nag that words mean things. (And despite depending on, and having much respect for, software design, I don't see any real difference between categorizing computer languages and cultural idioms. They're both practical knowledge within their domains and little else, but there's an expectation of an attempt at accuracy, as SirMustapha noted, if you're entering into an argument about anything.)

[whateveries]

this discussion is odd. it's like people are so used to arguing with SirMustupha that they haven't noticed he actually has not said anything to take offense from. all I can say is.

so. it has come to this.

[babble]

In any individual case, it's a judgement call whether the writer is expressing his position reasonably or trying to offend. When the position itself is offensive, people are likely to decide he's trying to offend. So for example, if a white supremacist were to post here explaining why whites have superior intelligence, how would he express that reasonably? Then if people insulted him and he accused them of being rude, wouldn't it basicly be a shouting match to decide who was rude? And the majority wins, or at least outshouts. (Or maybe the moderators would decide, and there probably isn't a white supremacist among them.) But on a forum full of white supremacists, somebody who said that whites are just as stupid as blacks might be the rude one.

MrMustafa consistently presents unpopular positions, and he generates a lot of antagonism. I think it's predictable that people wouldn't as much give him the benefit of the doubt when there's a doubt.

what the what? As far as I have seen, SirMustapha sometimes says that xkcd isn't really funny and that it really needs an editor. That's what I took you to mean by unpopular opinions, and that's what I was questioning. Because I never can understand why people get so personally wound up by him. I've never seen him be gratuitously rude to a person, and I wonder if there really is a need for a forum like this to refuse to tolerate actual discussion/criticism of the material. If it were strong enough, his points would be easily refuted. (The fact that it isn't strong enough is the real problem, I suspect - the options for response then are admitting that he's right, or retreating into defensiveness or personal attacks, I guess.)

Is there more to this than that? You can't seriously be comparing the opinion that xkcd is smug and unfunny with racism?

[J Thomas]

Why would he know that?

If you don't mind going back to this, his deliberate abuse of terminology was in response to an abuse of terminology he found offensive, phrased in exactly the same way. The entire intended meaning of the message was that he didn't know what he was talking about, and I think it was fairly clear.

Sure. But people who dislike him may not read carefully. They will tend to see whatever they already expect. I'm not justifying that or excusing it, merely pointing out that it can be expected.

It's OK to ignore those people, but to attempt to communicate with them it might help to be very clear. Irony, satire, and sarcasm are often easy to misinterpret.

I will say that as a humanities person, I still find the bulk of the humanities less enlightening in a personal sense than, say, evolutionary biology, but I'd largely agree with the spirit of SirMustapha's nag that words mean things. (And despite depending on, and having much respect for, software design, I don't see any real difference between categorizing computer languages and cultural idioms. They're both practical knowledge within their domains and little else, but there's an expectation of an attempt at accuracy, as SirMustapha noted, if you're entering into an argument about anything.)

I expect most of us have seen this, but I'll explain it in case somebody hasn't.

When people argue, their arguments are kind of holographic. The story is that it's like a hologram. Each part of the hologram affects the whole thing, not just a little piece of the picture. So if you remove part of the hologram you don't get a picture with a hole in it, you get a fuzzier picture. LIke that -- we argue about something that has already gotten thousands of PhD dissertations -- like slavery, say -- and we make arguments that will fit into a forum post. The less space available, the fuzzier the arguments get. We lose the details but the main outline of the arguments remains at the resolution the bandwidth supports.

We're fuzzy about everything but we're more fuzzy about the things we don't care about. I think to a lot of xkcd readers, the distinction between Dada and Surrealism is not very important. If they thought it was important they would learn about it. Tell them it's important and the natural thought is "OK, how come? Isn't the answer 'a fish' either way?". Kind of like a humanities major who knows that computer nerds program with computer languages and tell jokes about binary. Why would more details matter to them? Kind of like I don't read PhD dissertations about the banking system in the antebellum south and the debts that paid for slaves, versus factors in yankee cities and the debts that paid for wages. TMI.

Ok, that's one.

Here's a second long explanation. There was a time when the philosophers who cared about words were divided into two main camps. The nominalists believed that meanings for words get created fresh inside each head. You pick meanings from your experience, and the meanings are shared to the extent the experiences are shared. The search for common meaning is a neverending adventure, and communication is an achievement not a given. The other school, the platonic realists, believed that the meanings are innate and realer than experience, that our experience provides us with imperfect representations of the real meanings.

When a realist says "Words Have Meanings" I hear him say "Each word has at least as many meanings as there are people who use it". The phrase does not mean the same thing to me, because my experience leads me to interpret it differently. When we have a conversation I attempt to get a feel for what the words mean for you, but it's a challenge. Not like it's a given and any misunderstanding is willful.

And when I attempt to understand somebody and repeatedly the payoff is disappointing, after awhile I don't try as hard.

People care about their own focus. If you want to persuade them that something they know little about is important enough to make less fuzzy across a forum post's bandwidth, then it's your chosen mission to convince them. They don't have an obligation to understand you. Some people might accept the challenge to try to learn as much as they can about everything, but you can't depend on them to succeed at that. Meanwhile, when they argue they attempt to make the most important outlines of their argument clear. They can't possibly be accurate about everything.

I apologize for making this so long. It's a balance -- write too short and people are guaranteed to misunderstand. Too long and they won't read it. I tend to err on the too-long side.

As far as I have seen, SirMustapha sometimes says that xkcd isn't really funny and that it really needs an editor. That's what I took you to mean by unpopular opinions, and that's what I was questioning. Because I never can understand why people get so personally wound up by him.

It happens. Sometimes it makes sense. Like, say there's a forum where Democrats are discussing how to destroy the GOP. And then some Republicans get onto it and argue that the Democrats shouldn't try to destroy the GOP at all, they should just disband. They would feel like the purpose of their forum is being violated. They are there to achieve a goal, not get trolled by Republicans. It makes sense for a forum like that to be member-only and throw out members who violate the purpose.

IMO it's OK to rate how much you like different strips. People can disagree if they want, or they can ignore you. But some people just don't want to see it and argue that posters they don't like should just go away. I don't know how many people that's driven off -- I mostly notice the ones who stay.

I've never seen him be gratuitously rude to a person, and I wonder if there really is a need for a forum like this to refuse to tolerate actual discussion/criticism of the material. If it were strong enough, his points would be easily refuted.

I don't think this is a matter of truth or falsehood. If somebody tells a joke and then somebody else argues that it wasn't funny, and they dissect the joke at length to explain why it wasn't funny, what response would refute that? You could perhaps dissect the joke the correct way to show that it does in fact obey the rules of humor and prove that it's funny after all.

Tastes differ. That's OK with me.

[SirMustapha]

If you don't mind going back to this, his deliberate abuse of terminology was in response to an abuse of terminology he found offensive, phrased in exactly the same way. The entire intended meaning of the message was that he didn't know what he was talking about, and I think it was fairly clear.

To clarify: it's not that I found the misuse of words offensive. What bothers me is that there is this notable group of people who almost take pride in disdaining things they don't know or don't understand This is particularly bothersome here because this is a community of people who equate xkcd with intelligence and/or culture, and frankly, this disdain and mockery towards humanities and arts are not compatible with intelligent and cultured people.

If I hadn't witnessed more displays of this kind of arrogance, I don't think I'd bother making that post. I mix up words and get terms wrong too, after all I am human. But this mix up is symptomatic, not merely accidental.

We're fuzzy about everything but we're more fuzzy about the things we don't care about. I think to a lot of xkcd readers, the distinction between Dada and Surrealism is not very important. If they thought it was important they would learn about it.

But the moment that a person decides to talk about something, that thing becomes important to him. The problem isn't not knowing, but not knowing and still talking about it anyway; if someone enters a forum to talk about "surrealism", he should at least bother to read two or three paragraphs on Wikipedia, for a start. It's the least anyone here should do.

I don't think this is a matter of truth or falsehood. If somebody tells a joke and then somebody else argues that it wasn't funny, and they dissect the joke at length to explain why it wasn't funny, what response would refute that?

Personally, I'm not interested in "proving" that the jokes are not funny. When I criticise a comic, I intend to show that it is perfectly reasonable not to enjoy the comics, even knowing what they are trying to do (i.e. not enjoying them for "not getting them" is something else entirely). Many fans take for granted that any computer literate person will find xkcd hilarious because the jokes are hilarious by default, and thus go on a spree of sticking comics on office walls, wearing T-shirts to show off around their workplaces, and throwing one-liners to college colleagues expecting everyone to get it. That's not how reality works. xkcd broke plenty of new ground by exploring and combining unusual themes, but that is not enough. Your next door neighbour will not magically turn into Placido Domingo if he starts singing about Python.

[J Thomas]

I don't think this is a matter of truth or falsehood. If somebody tells a joke and then somebody else argues that it wasn't funny, and they dissect the joke at length to explain why it wasn't funny, what response would refute that?

Personally, I'm not interested in "proving" that the jokes are not funny. When I criticise a comic, I intend to show that it is perfectly reasonable not to enjoy the comics, even knowing what they are trying to do (i.e. not enjoying them for "not getting them" is something else entirely).

That's just what I'm talking about! I say you don't have to justify it. You have the right to not enjoy anything you want to not enjoy, and you don't owe anybody any justification. You don't have to show you're being "reasonable". You can even be downright unreasonable. It's OK.

Many fans take for granted that any computer literate person will find xkcd hilarious because the jokes are hilarious by default, and thus go on a spree of sticking comics on office walls, wearing T-shirts to show off around their workplaces, and throwing one-liners to college colleagues expecting everyone to get it. That's not how reality works.

It sounds real to me. I think there are people like that. They have the right to be that way. They don't owe you any justification, and they don't owe it to you to change. If they get too much negative reinforcement maybe they'll quit doing it, or maybe they'll do it more. Human beings are like that sometimes, in the face of unremitting negative reinforcement we keep on sticking it out there. "Do something that gets negative reinforcement once and it's an accident. Twice and it's a coincidence. Three times and it's a learning experience. Do it consistently and it's a philosophy."

I'm not telling anybody involved in this to change. I get the strong impression that you enjoy doing it because you like feeling superior to these philistines. And they enjoy feeling superior to you. It's win-win! I enjoy solving problems but there's no problem to solve here, everybody's happy. Unless somebody isn't happy -- then maybe they should try doing something different.

[Red Hal]

Human beings are like that sometimes, in the face of unremitting negative reinforcement we keep on sticking it out there.

Ponies

[distractedSofty]

Many fans take for granted that any computer literate person will find xkcd hilarious because the jokes are hilarious by default, and thus go on a spree of sticking comics on office walls, wearing T-shirts to show off around their workplaces, and throwing one-liners to college colleagues expecting everyone to get it.

That seems like a bad way to describe what's going on: people like stuff they like. If someone has a Star Wars poster in their office, are they assuming everyone will find Star Wars awesome by default, or are they just expressing their enjoyment?

What about when someone completes "Stop! (beat)" with "Hammertime!", breaks the silence after a question is asked with "Bueller?" or responds to an unreasonable request with "Ye cannae change the laws of physics"?

[jpk]

What about when someone completes "Stop! (beat)" with "Hammertime!", breaks the silence after a question is asked with "Bueller?" or responds to an unreasonable request with "Ye cannae change the laws of physics"?

No, no, no! It's "Stop! (beat) Dinnertime!"

You gotta get these things right, it's important!

[SirMustapha]

Many fans take for granted that any computer literate person will find xkcd hilarious because the jokes are hilarious by default, and thus go on a spree of sticking comics on office walls, wearing T-shirts to show off around their workplaces, and throwing one-liners to college colleagues expecting everyone to get it.

What about when someone completes "Stop! (beat)" with "Hammertime!", breaks the silence after a question is asked with "Bueller?" or responds to an unreasonable request with "Ye cannae change the laws of physics"?

But that's the exact definition of what I'm saying! A person would only make in-jokes like that if he knows the others will understand it -- otherwise, the "joke" would be completely lost.

But the fact is, there are people silly enough to think that any "computer guy" is necessarily a fan of Star Wars. But there is a difference: Star Wars is a a massive cultural icon and pretty much everyone knows. xkcd, though, filled a very specific niche which needed some kind of identity. It quenched a massive thirst for self-recognition, and that partially explains why it has such a devoted fanbase. It's understandable.

[Red Hal]

So it has come to this.

[SirMustapha]

No, you're lying.

[Belial]

frankly, this disdain and mockery towards humanities and arts are not compatible with intelligent and cultured people.

Mother of fuck, I actually agree with you.

I mean, the rest of your post...eh. And your subject-verb agreement is questionable. But still. This. Yes.

[eran_rathan]

frankly, this disdain and mockery towards humanities and arts are not compatible with intelligent and cultured people.

Mother of fuck

What a terribly unfortunate name. I expect he'd get nowhere in polite society. I wonder what his mother was thinking when she named him.

[Belial]

Meth is a hell of a drug.

[Jack2smith1988]

This comic is a take on one of the typical revenge tactics in dating and in life, which is one person "keying" the car of another. To "key" a car is to drag a key across the side of the car, sometimes multiple times, ruining the paint job. Instead, our friend Beret Guy painted a really detailed key on the side of the car in his version of "keying" a car.
--------------------------------------------------

[rmsgrey]

It's just as expensive to fix (at least if done in a timely fashion) but much less urgent - a key painted over the existing paintwork will not reduce the protection offered by the paint, while a scratch through the paintwork exposes the car's body to the elements

[Klear]

It's just as expensive to fix (at least if done in a timely fashion) but much less urgent - a key painted over the existing paintwork will not reduce the protection offered by the paint, while a scratch through the paintwork exposes the car's body to the elements

Agreed. He should have scratched the picture of the key on the car.